CoA rejects armored cars’ deal

THE Commission on Audit, with finality, has affirmed the disallowance issued against the Philippine National Police’s procurement contracts worth P399.064 million on parts and services for 18 V-150 light armored vehicles in 2007.

In a six-page decision, Chairman Michael Aguinaldo, and Commissioners Jose Fabia and Isabel Agito denied the petition for review filed by Supt. Rainier Espina, former chief of the Office of the Directorate for Comptrollership-Management Division, seeking the reversal of the fraud audit office’s Sept. 10, 2013 ruling that upheld two notices of disallowance issued against such transactions.

Notices of Disallowance No. 2012-10-024 was issued for the purchase of 40 tires when CoA found that half of the delivery failed to conform with the specifications in the supply contract agreement.

While the supplier, Serpenair Group Inc., should provide 40 Michelin 14.00 R20 XML (on-road type), only 20 tires with such specifications were delivered.

On Oct. 18, 2012, CoA issued Notice of Disallowance No. 2012-10-025 for transactions worth P397.594 million for the acquisition of spare parts, accessories and service costs for the LAV V-150.

CoA said the transactions lacked public bidding, and that the suppliers had no proven technical and financial capacity to undertake the procurement.

There were also under-delivery or ghost delivery worth P83.9 million, unsubstantiated release of payments of P66.567 million, and non-submission of defective and/or replaced parts as proof that necessary repairs were made.

The contractor-suppliers—RJP International Construction and General Services, Enviro-Aire Inc, and Evans Spare Parts Motor Works RPR and Trading—were also held culpable.

“Inspection is an essential component of the procurement process to ascertain whether the specifications required, as to quantity and quality, are met. This Commission resolves to deny this petition. In view of the violations of laws and regulations, …this case shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman,” the CoA’s decision read.

More from this Category:

COMMENT DISCLAIMER: Reader comments posted on this Web site are not in any way endorsed by Manila Standard. Comments are views by manilastandard.net readers who exercise their right to free expression and they do not necessarily represent or reflect the position or viewpoint of manilastandard.net. While reserving this publication’s right to delete comments that are deemed offensive, indecent or inconsistent with Manila Standard editorial standards, Manila Standard may not be held liable for any false information posted by readers in this comments section.